Does the Internet Increase, Decrease,2001

8/4/2019 Does the Internet Increase, Decrease,2001

1/21

http://abs.sagepub.com/American Behavioral Scientist

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/45/3/436The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00027640121957286

2001 45: 436American Behavioral ScientistBARRY WELLMAN, ANABEL QUAN HAASE, JAMES WITTE and KEITH HAMPTON

Community Commitmentes the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital? : Social Networks, Participation

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Behavioral ScientistAdditional services and information for

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/45/3/436.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 1, 2001Version of Record>>

at SEIR on September 29, 2011abs.sagepub.comDownloaded from


2/21

AMERICAN BEHAVIORALSCIENTISTWellmanetal./ THEINTERNETAND SOCIALCAPITAL

Does the Internet Increase, Decrease,or Supplement Social Capital?

Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment

BARRY WELLMAN

ANABEL QUAN HAASE

University of Toronto

JAMES WITTE

Clemson University

KEITH HAMPTONMassachusetts Institute of Technology

Howdoesthe Internet affectsocialcapital?Do thecommunication possibilities of theInternet

increase, decrease, or supplement interpersonal contact, participation, and community

commitment? This evidence comes from a 1998 survey of 39,211 visitors to the National

Geographic Society Web site, one of the first large-scale Web surveys. The authors find that

peoples interaction online supplements their face-to-face and telephone communication

without increasing or decreasing it.However, heavy Internet use is associatedwith increased

participation in voluntary organizations and politics. Further support for this effect is the

positiveassociation between offlineandonline participationin voluntaryorganizations and

politics. However, the effects of the Internet are not only positive: The heaviest users of the

Internet arethe leastcommitted to online community. Taken together, thisevidence suggests

that the Internet is becoming normalized as it is incorporated into the routine practices ofeveryday life.

DEBATING THE INTERNETS EFFECTS

ON SOCIAL CAPITAL

How theInternet affects socialcapital is neither a trivial noran obscure ques-

tion. RobertPutnam(1996,2000) hasdocumented a long-termdecline since the

436

Authors Note: Thisarticle hasprofited by the advice andassistance of RichardBernard,WenhongChen, JoeGermuska,Philip Howard,Kristine Klement,Valerie May, CarletonThorne,andBeverlyWellman. Ourcompatriots at the University of Torontos NetLab, Centre for Urban and CommunityStudies,Department of Sociology, theFacultyof InformationStudies, the Knowledge MediaDesign

Institute, and the Bell University Laboratories have created stimulating milieus for thinking aboutcyber-society. Theresearch thatunderlies thisarticlehas beensupported by theBell University Lab-oratories, theNationalGeographicSociety, theSocial Science andHumanities Research Council of

Canada, and the Office of Learning Technologies (Human Resources Development Canada).

AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST, Vol. 45 No. 3, November 2001 436-455

2001 Sage Publications



3/21

Wellman et al. / THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL CAPITAL 437

1960s in American civic involvement. This decline includes the lessened ability

of citizens to articulate and organize requests for good government, the move-ment away from community life, and increased psychological alienation.

Putnams evidence encompasses two forms of social capital, which we call

1. Networkcapital:Relations withfriends,neighbors, relatives, andworkmates thatsignificantly providecompanionship,emotional aid,goodsand services, informa-tion, and a sense of belonging (Wellman & Frank, 2001).

2. Participatory capital: Involvement in politics and voluntary organizations thataffordsopportunities forpeople tobond,create joint accomplishments,and aggre-gate and articulate their demands and desires, a concept enshrined in the Ameri-can heritage by de Tocqueville (1835).

We add a third item to this discussion and to our analysis:

3. Community commitment: Social capital consists of more than going through themotions of interpersonal interaction and organizational involvement. When peo-ple have a strong attitude toward communityhave a motivated, responsiblesense of belongingthey will mobilize their social capital more willingly andeffectively (McAdam, 1982).

What if Putnam is only measuringoldforms of communityandparticipation

while new forms of communication and organization underneath his radar are

connecting people? Some evidence suggests that the observed decline has not

led to social isolationbut to communitybecoming embedded in socialnetworks

rather than groups and a movement of community relationships from easily

observed public spaces to less accessible private homes (see the related discus-

sions in Lin, 2001; Wellman, 1999a, 2001). If people are tucked away in their

homes rather than conversing in cafes, then perhaps they aregoing online: chat-ting onlineone-to-one;exchanginge-mail induets or smallgroups; or schmooz-

ing,ranting, andorganizing indiscussiongroups suchas listservsor newsgroups

(Kraut, Lundmark, et al., 1998; Smith, Drucker, Wellman, & Kraut, 1999). The

rapidly expanding Internet has been a big hope for community creation, with

more than half of Americans (56%) having Internet access by the end of 2000

(Mosquera, 2000). Although the debate surrounding the influence of the

Internet on social capital has been ongoing, no clear pattern has yet emerged.

Until recently, much of the debate took place without much systematic data

(Flanagan & Metzger, 2001). Utopians have claimed that the Internet provides

new andbetterways of communication (e.g.,De Kerckhove, 1997; Lvy, 1997),

whereas dystopians have argued that the Internet takes people away from their

communities and families (e.g., Slouka, 1995; Stoll, 1995).

As theInternethas infiltrated NorthAmerican life, analysts have hadto movefrom seeing it as an external world to seeing how it becomes integrated into the

complexity of everyday life(comparethefirst andsecond editions of Rheingold,

1993, 2000). We contribute to the debate by asking if the Internet increases,

decreases, or supplements social capital. We examine peoples Internet use in



4/21

the broader context of theirface-to-faceand telephonecommunication.We ana-

lyze therelationship of their online activities to their interpersonalnetworkcapi-tal, their organizational and political participation, and their commitment to

community. The evidence for our discussion comes from a large-scale Web sur-

vey of visitors to theNationalGeographicSociety Website in thefallof 1998.

DOES THE INTERNET INCREASE SOCIAL CAPITAL?

Earlyand continuingexcitement about the Internet saw it as stimulating

positivechangein peoples lives by creating new forms of onlineinteractionand

enhancing offline relationships. The Internet would restore community by pro-

vidinga meeting space for people with common interests and overcoming limi-

tations of space andtime (Baym,1997; Sproull & Kiesler,1991; Wellman, 2001).

Online communities would promote open, democratic discourse (Sproull &

Kiesler, 1991), allow for multipleperspectives (Kapor,1993), and mobilize col-

lective action (Schwartz,1996;Tarrow, 1999). Although earlyaccounts focused

on the formation of online virtual communities (e.g., Rheingold, 1993), it has

becomeclear that most relationships formed in cyberspace continue in physical

space, leading to new forms of community characterized by a mixture of online

and offline interactions (e.g.,Mller,1999;Rheingold,2000). Moreover, online

interactions fill communication gaps between face-to-face meetings. The

Internet thus enhances the tendency for many ties to be nonlocal, connected by

cars, planes, phones, and now computer networks (Wellman, 1999a, 2001).

Although a developing phenomenon worldwide (Wellman, 1999b), nonlocal

community is probably most prevalent in North America, where people move

frequently and sometimes far away; where family, friends, former neighbors,

and workmates are separated by many miles; and where the many immigrants

keep contact with friends and relatives in their homelands.

Thosewhoseethe Internet as playing an increasinglycentral role ineveryday

life wouldarguethat it increasescommunication offline as well as online. In this

view, theInternet notonly affords opportunities to contact friends andkinat low

cost, it also enhances face-to-face and telephone communication as network

members (a) becomemore aware of each others needs and stimulate their rela-

tionships through more frequent contact (Homans, 1961); (b) exchange songs,

pictures,andotherfiles; and(c) make onlinearrangements tomeet inpersonand

by telephone. The Internet can also increase organizational involvement by

facilitating the flow of information between face-to-face meetings and arrang-

ing these meetings themselves. The plethora of information available on the

Web and the ease of using search engines and hyperlinks to find groups fitting

ones interests should enable newcomers to find, join, and get involved in kin-dred organizations. Thus, if the Internet increases social capital, then high

Internet useshouldbe accompanied by more offline interpersonal contact, orga-

nizational participation, and commitment to community.

438 AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST



5/21

DOES THE INTERNET DECREASE SOCIAL CAPITAL?

Thesecondview argues foran inverserelationship, that theInternet is foster-

ing a decline in social capital. The interrelated bases for the argument are that

The Internet may be diverting people from true community because online

interactions are inherently inferior to face-to-face and evenphone interactions.

Online ties may be less able than offline ties to foster complex friendships, pro-

vide intangible resourcessuch as emotional support, andprovide tangible mate-

rial aid. As Robert Putnam once told Barry Wellman (personal e-mail, January

10, 2000), I think youre a wild-eyed optimist to think that person-to-person

networks are just as good as, if not better than old-fashioned door-to-door (or

rather faces-to-faces) networks.

The Internet may compete for time with other activities in an inelastic24-hourday. There are discrepant findings about whether online time sinks do or do not

pull peopleaway from other interactions insideandoutside thehouseholdNie

(2001 [this issue]) and Nie and Erbring (2000) said they do, whereas Anderson

and Tracy (2001 [this issue]) said they do not. The Internet can draw peoples

attention away from their immediate physical environment because when they

areonline they payless attentionto theirphysicalandsocial surroundings. Some

researchers see a parallel in the impact of the Internet with the way that televi-

sion had a similar absorptive effect that reduced social interaction in the home

(Steiner, 1963) as well as social and political involvement outside it (Nie &

Sackman, 1970). But broadcast television is not a clear analogue to the socially

interactive Internet.

TheInternetmay bea stressor that depresses andalienates peoplefrom inter-action (Kraut, Lundmark, et al., 1998). One longitudinal study of newbies to

the Internet found that as Internet use increases, social contact offline decreases

and depression and loneliness increase. Although the Internet enhanced weak

online ties, it simultaneously decreased stronger offline interactions (Kraut,

Mukhopadhyay, Szczypula, Kiesler, & Scherlis, 1998; LaRose, Eastin, &

Gregg, 2001). How might the Internet be alienating?

1. Newbies often experience stress and time pressures after getting computerized(Kraut, Mukhopadhyay, et al., 1998; LaRose et al., 2001).

2. Experienced users may have better coping techniques, but their more complexuses of the Internet create problems because programs often function badly andmuch time is required to cope with computer failures.

3. Thevaunted ubiquitousconnectivityof theInternetmakespeoplemore accessibleto each other, whether the recipients want it or not. Contact with less enjoyablepeople,perhapsbringing unwanted information,maydepressandalienate. Activeparticipants are more likely to be flawed and defamed.

4. Not all uses of the Internet are social. Much activity is Web-oriented, seekinginformation or engaging in solitary recreations. Moreover, many social activities




6/21


online (such as e-mail) are asynchronous, delaying gratifying feedback until the

recipient signs on, reads the message, decides to answer, and the original sendereventually gets his or her answer (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991).5. Computerization andthe Internetcanblur thehome-work boundary. People bring

work homeand attend to it rather thanto their families, friends,andotheractivities(Nie & Erbring, 2000). The ease of working at home reflects and reinforces thecontemporaryproliferation of knowledgeworkers(Cohen& Prusak,2001; Cross,2000).

6. Although theInternetcan foster global interactions, it keepspeople indoors, star-ing at their screens, and neglecting localinteractions at home andin the neighbor-hood (Nie, 2001).

1

7. Onlinetiesmay bemorehomogeneousin perspective.They often evolve aroundaspecific interest such as soap operas (Baym, 1997) or BMW cars (Wellman &Gulia, 1999). This narrows perspectives and access to new information.

8. The Internet may foster more contact with acquaintances and tilt the balancebetween weak and strong ties (Granovetter, 1973). The value of weak ties is intheir provision of new information and access to disparate networks, whereasstrong ties that arewrappedup ina community arecharacterizedby commitment,friendship, and exchange of resources such as emotional support (Kraut,Lundmark, et al.,1998; Merton,1957). Thus, if theInternetdecreasessocial capi-tal, then high Internet use should be accompanied by less offline interpersonalcontact, organizational and political participation, and commitment tocommunity.

DOES THE INTERNET SUPPLEMENT SOCIAL CAPITAL?

Where the increaseanddecrease arguments privilege theInternetby seeingit

as radically changing how people interact offline, the supplement argument

gives this new technology less of a central role in shaping social trends. It pre-

sents the Internet as best understood in the context of a persons overall life. It is

integrated into rhythms of daily life, with life online viewed as an extension ofoffline activities.Forexample,onestudy finds the Internet to be a multidimen-

sional technology used in a manner similar to other, more traditional technolo-

gies (Flanagan & Metzger, 2001, p. 153). Thus, the Internet provides an addi-

tional means of communication to telephone and face-to-face contact (Mller,

1999), one that can be more convenient and affordable.2 The supplement argu-

ment suggests that the Internets effects on society will be important but evolu-

tionary, likethe telephonehas been (Fischer, 1992), continuingand intensifying

the interpersonal transformation from door-to-door to individualized place-to-

place and person-to-person networks (Wellman, 2001). Although face-to-face

andtelephonecontact continue, they arecomplementedby theInternets ease in

connecting geographically dispersed people and organizations bonded by

shared interests.

The Internet may be more useful for maintaining existing ties than for creat-ing new ones (Koku, Nazer, & Wellman, 2001). Nor might the Internet lead to

organizational and political participation if users have no interest in such mat-

ters. For example, wiring Blacksburg Electronic Village did not produce large

changes in interpersonal contact and community involvement (Kavanaugh &



7/21

Patterson, 2001 [this issue]; Uslaner, 2000). Similarly, the introduction of

sophisticated informationandcommunicationsystems in thebusinessworld hasnot demonstrably created social capital (e.g., Orlikowski, 1996; schraefel, Ho,

Chignell,& Milton, 2000).Thus, if theInternet supplements socialcapital, then

Internet use should supplement offlineinterpersonal interaction, not affect orga-

nizational participation and increase commitment to community. The level of

Internet involvement will not be associated with either more or less offline

activity.

AN EXPEDITION TO STUDY USERS OF THE INTERNET

THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY SURVEY 2000

TheNationalGeographicSociety Survey 2000 wasavailableto visitors to the

Societys Web site from September to November 1998. It was publicized

through the widely distributed monthly National Geographic magazine, a

prominent notice on the Societys homepage, and multiple public information

sources. Although the survey was international,garnering47,176adultcomple-

tions worldwide, we focus here on 39,211 North American adult participants:

34,839 Americans and 4,372 Canadians. Although this is not a random sample,

comparisons with the 1993 and 1996 U.S. General Social Survey allow us to

consider the nature of the self-selection bias (Witte, Amoroso, & Howard,

2000).3 We exclude here those who encountered the Internet for the first time

when completing thesurvey. Thus, this is ananalysis of thesocial capital of visi-

tors to theNationalGeographic site andnot of thegeneral North American adult

population.

WHAT DO PEOPLE DO ONLINE?

National Geographic survey participants are not a population of newbies.

Morethanhalf (58%) had beenonline for atleast 2 years when theytookthesur-

vey, whereas only 12% had been online for less than 6 months. The most com-

mon activity is social, exchanging e-mails at a mean rate of 270 days per year

(see Table 1). Other social activities include engaging in chats (25 days per

year), playing multi-user games (11 days per year), and visiting multi-user

dimensions (MUDs) or other online role-playing environments (7 days per

year). People also use the Internet for less social activities, such as Web surfing

(154 days peryear); looking fornews,digital libraries, andmagazines(124 days

per year); receiving announcements (105 days per year); and shopping (8 daysper year).

Survey 2000 contained 10 items whereby participants reported different

aspects of their Internet use. Foreach item, participantsanswered on a scale rang-

ing from 1 (rarely), 2 (monthly), 3 (weekly), 4 (a few times a week), to 5 (daily).




8/21

Factor analysis of these 10 items revealed two distinct profiles of Internet use:

synchronous and asynchronous (see Table 1). Instead of using factor scores to

create scales, we additively combined the items to create a synchronous and an

asynchronous scale, with high scores denoting more Internet activity.4

The synchronous scale represents simultaneous interaction between two or

more users and includes three items (see Table 1). Synchronous activities are

inherently social activities involving at least two people interacting simulta-

neously. By contrast, the asynchronous scale represents diverse activities

including e-mail and information search (see Table 1). Asynchronous commu-

nication facilitates interaction by not requiring the simultaneous availability of

both parties as well as allowing for one-to-many message exchanges. Asyn-

chronous e-mail is the most frequently used Internet activity.

WHO ENGAGES IN INTERNET ACTIVITY?

Length of time on the Internet substantially predicts howand how much

the Internet is used, both asynchronously and synchronously.5 By contrast, the

effects of demographic characteristicsarebarelyvisible, if at all. Thenumberof

monthspeoplehavebeen online is theonly meaningful predictor(= .41)of theamount of asynchronous Internet activity (see also Howard, Rainie, & Jones,

2001 [this issue]; Kavanaugh & Patterson, 2001). There probably are two rea-sons forthe association.First,thosewho havebeen onlinefor a long time maybe

more apt to be Internet enthusiasts. Second, long exposure makes experienced

users Internet savvy and more likely to use it.


TABLE 1: Internet Use: Frequency and Factor Analysis (N= 39,211)

Factor Loadingsa

Internet Activity Days/Year Asynchronous Synchronous

Send/receive e-mail 270 .682b

.050

Take part in mailing lists 105 .729b

.038

Access digital libraries,

newspapers, or magazines 124 .717b

.111

Take online college courses 11 .403b

.237

Purchase products or services 8 .564b

.078

Surf the Web 154 .533b

.310

Participate in Usenet newsgroups 26 .511b

.352

Engage in chats 25 .173 .701c

Visit MUDs, MOOs, other multiuser

environments 7 .141 .709c

Play multiuser games 11 .015 .727

c

NOTE: MUDs = multi-user dimensions; MOOs = multi-user object-oriented environments.a. Principal components analysis with orthogonal varimax rotations.b. Items included in asynchronous scale.c. Items included in synchronous scale.



9/21

The situation for synchronous Internet activities is similar to that for asyn-

chronous activities. The effect of length of time online on synchronous activityis significant,but smaller thanfor asynchronous activity(= .11).Demographiccharacteristics are not substantially related to synchronous activities. The sole

exceptions arethat thosewithout a university degreeare more likelyto engagein

synchronous online activities, and those with less than a high school degree are

more likely to play multiuser games online (see also Howard et al., 2001; Katz,

Rice, & Aspden, 2001 [this issue]). Moreover, latecomers to the Internet are

more likely to play multiuser games and to chat online.

The general lack of relationship between demographic characteristics and

Internet activities fit recent findings that the digital divide is becoming smaller

(e.g., DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001; Katz et al., 2001;

National Telecommunications and Information Administration [NTIA], 2000;

Reddick, 2000). Affluent, university-educated White men no longer predomi-

nate (for reports of the earlier situation see Bikson & Panis, 1997). The clearest

result is behavioral: People who have been on the Web longer engage in more

types of Internet activities.

SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THE INTERNET ERA

NETWORK CAPITAL

Media use. Internet-using National Geographic visitors use the telephone

most frequently (40%) for contact with socially close friends and relatives, fol-

lowed by e-mail (32%), face-to-face visits (23%), and a small amount of postal

letter writing (4%).6

Wellman, Carrington, and Hall (1988) show more of a bal-ance between telephone and face-to-face use in their pre-Internet study,

although these data pertain only to peoples 20 or so most active ties. As in

pre-Internet days (Fischer, 1992; Wellman et al., 1988), people communicate

almostas much with kin(46% of all reported informal communications)as they

do with friends (54%).What about distance,always a constraint on communica-

tion even after air travel, freeways, and long-distance telephone lines prolifer-

ated (Wellman & Tindall, 1993)? We would expect that because e-mail is asyn-

chronous and its cost does not increase with distance, using it would reduce the

constraints of distance on contact. But does e-mail also affect communication

with network members living nearby (Hampton, 2001; Haythornthwaite &

Wellman, 1998)?

Even in the Internet era, distance still constrains communication (see also

Hampton & Wellman, 2001 [this issue]). Most contact is with friends and rela-tives living nearby (within 50 kilometers). The telephone is the most used

mediumforcontact with network members living nearby. The telephoneis used

for 52% of all contact with nearby kin and 29% for all contact with nearby




10/21

friends. By contrast, e-mail is most often used for more distant network mem-

bers (living more than 50kilometers away). E-mailis used for48% of allcontactwith distant kin and for 60% of all contact with distant friends. E-mail is espe-

cially useful for communicating with people who are far away because of low

monthly rates, distance-free costs, and its ease in sending messages to people

living in other time zones.

Distance affects kinship less than friendship, a pattern continued from the

telephone era (Wellman & Tindall, 1993). Kin are usually more knit into social

systems that support contact among distant network members, whereas friend-

ships tend to be more voluntary and one-to-one (Wellman & Wortley, 1990).

E-mail supplements other means of communication with kin. Kin who use e-

mail a lot to communicate visit and phone each other as frequently as those who

rarely use e-mail to keep in contact.

Distance is intertwinedwith e-mailcontact among friends. Peopleuse e-mail

more often to stay in touch with friends who live nearby than with friends who

liveat a distance (ratio = 1.4).7 Nearby friends arecontacted three times as often

as those farther away (ratio = 2.9); nearby kin are contacted twice as often as

those farther away (ratio = 1.9). Friendship contact is more localized than kin-

ship contact. Personal visits occur eight times more often with nearby friends

than with distant ones (ratio= 8.8), andtelephone contact occursfive times more

often with nearby friends than distant ones (ratio = 5.2).

Interpersonal network contact. Internet use neither increases nor decreases

other forms of communication. Neither the frequency of asynchronous nor syn-

chronous Internet activities is associated with the frequency of other forms of

contact. Frequent use of the Internet is associated with more frequent contact

with friends and relatives, near and far, but only because Internet use supple-

ments face-to-face and telephone contact (see Tables 2 and 3). People still keep

visiting and phoning, but they also e-mail. This suggests that face-to-face and

telephonecontact provideunique waysof communicating forwhichthe Internet

cannot substitute. Moreover, no demographic characteristics of participants are

associated with network contact.8

PARTICIPATORY CAPITAL

Organizational participation. The Internet supplements and increases orga-

nizational involvement.9 The results indicate a positive relationship between

Internet useandorganizationalparticipation. Theeffect is stronger for theasyn-

chronous activities ( = .13) than for the synchronous activities ( = .10; see

Table 4). The only demographic characteristic related to organizational partici-pation was education: The more highly educated a person, the more involved.

Thus, the results suggest that people who use the Web often tend to be involved




11/21

TABLE2:E-MailUsebyMeanAnnualCommunicationWithin30Miles(50km)

Family

Friends

E-MailUse

F2F

Phone

Letters

E-Mail

Total

F2F

Phone

Letters

E-Mail

Tota

l

Never

77

117

6

1

201

104

136

6

1

247

Rarely

65

116

6

5

192

84

112

8

5

209

Monthly

61

113

6

7

187

74

98

5

9

186

Weekly

62

121

6

13

202

76

99

7

20

202

Fewtimesperw

eek

63

115

7

24

209

83

113

7

37

240

Daily

60

118

8

52

238

92

126

9

118

345

Total

61

117

7

39

224

88

120

9

86

303

NOTE:F2F=face-to-face.

TABLE3:E-MailUsebyMeanAnnualCommunicationBeyond30Miles(50km)

Family

Friends

E-MailUse

F2F

Phone

Letters

E-Mail

Total

F2F

Phone

Letters

E-Mail

Tota

l

Never

12

37

8

1

58

13

25

7

1

46

Rarely

10

36

8

5

59

11

19

7

4

41

Monthly

9

35

7

10

61

8

16

6

8

38

Weekly

9

36

9

19

73

8

17

6

16

47

Fewtimesperw

eek

10

39

9

35

93

9

19

7

30

65

Daily

10

43

10

72

135

10

25

8

85

128

Total

10

41

10

55

116

10

23

8

62

103

NOTE:F2F=face-to-face.

445



12/21

in more organizations. The lengthof time peoplehave been online is not associ-

ated with the extent of their organizational involvement.

The Internet supplements organizational involvement. Involvementin online

computer clubs is positively associated with involvement in non-computer-

related organizations. The morepeople are involved in organizations offline, the

more they are involved in computer-related activities ( = .19; see Table 5). Themore they engage in asynchronous ( = .78) and synchronous ( = .37) Internetactivities, the more they are involved with organizations offline and computer

clubs online.

Political participation. Does the Internet affect peoples political participa-

tion by providing a new platform for debate and engagement (Castells, 1996)?

The patterns are similar to those for organizational involvement, not


TABLE 4: Effect of Asynchronous andSynchronous Internet Useon Political and Organi-

zational Participation

Asynchronous Internet Use Synchronous Internet Use

Political Organizational Political Organizational

Participationa

Participationa

Participationa

Participationa

Gender (male = 1) .006* .052 .013 .047

Age (reference = 30 to 39 years)

18 to 29 .000* .029 .015* .017

40 to 49 .098 .067 .100 .068

50 to 65 .122 .085 .124 .088

66 or older .065 .067 .062 .065

Race (reference = White)

Asian .017 .006* .014 .004*

Black .001* .018 .000* .016

Other .032 .033 .032 .033Education (reference =

undergraduate degree)

High school or less .057 .095 .076 .112

Some college .032 .075 .045 .087

Graduate degree .090 .107 .096 .111

Marital status

(reference = married)

Single .015 .016 .016 .017

Living with partner,

nonmarried .003* .038 .003* .038

How long using Internet .008 .010* .063 .032

Asynchronous Internet use .166 .134 .NA .NA

Synchronous Internet use .NA .NA .116 .105

Adjusted R2

.071 .065 .062 .061

a. Standardized beta coefficients.*Indicates nonsignificant coefficients (p > .05).



13/21

surprisingly, for most political activity can be seen as organizational involve-

ment.10 Age is theonly demographic characteristic related to political participa-

tion. Among people aged 40 to 65 years, there is a significant association

between their political participation and their Internet use, both synchronous

( = .12) and asynchronous ( = .17; see Table 4). The lack of an effect of timeonline suggests thatno differences in politicalparticipationcouldbe established

between early and late adopters of the Internet.

The more people engage in political activities offline, the more they engage

in political discussions online ( = .27; see Table 5). The more people use theInternet, either asynchronously ( = .67) or synchronously ( = .55), the more

they are politically involved online. As is the case for organizational involve-ment, thelength of timeonehas been on theInternetis notassociatedwith politi-

cal involvement. The only demographic characteristics related to political par-

ticipation online are age and race. Unlike organizational participation, older


TABLE 5: Demographic, Offline Participation, and Internet Effects on Online Organiza-

tional and Political Participation

Online Organizational Online Political

Participationa

Participationa

Gender (male = 1) .338 .141


18 to 29 .298 .201

40 to 49 .201 .191

50 to 65 .688 .255

66 or older 1.758 .594


Asian .450 .452

Black .527 .093*

Other .186* .090*

Education (reference = undergraduate degree)

High school or less .269 .011*

Some college .279 .176

Graduate degree .182 .088

Marital status (reference = married)

Single .191 .223

Living with partner, nonmarried .104* .287

How long using Internet .026 .010

Organizational participation offline .193 .NA

Political participation offline .NA .268

Asynchronous Internet use .783 .666

Synchronous Internet use .365 .547

Constant 6.693 4.611

Cox and Snell R2

.070 .157

a. Nonstandardized beta coefficients.

*Indicates nonsignificant coefficients (p > .05).



14/21

adults are less involved in online political discussions, whereas Asian Ameri-

cans are significantly less involved.Although these cross-sectional results do not show causation, they do show

that people active in organizations and politics offline are also active online.

Moreover, those more involved with the Internet in general aremore involved in

discussing politics online. This is especially supported by the considerable

increase in Cox and Snells pseudo R2, which increases considerably when the

twoInternet scales areadded to themodel.11 Online political discussion appears

to be an extension of offline activity and general involvement in the Internet.

High Internet use is associated with high participatory involvement in organiza-

tions and politics. The more online participation in organizations and politics,

the more offline participation in organizations and politics.

COMMUNITY COMMITMENT

If high use of the Internet supplements face-to-face and telephone contact

and if it affords greater involvement in organizations and politics, then both of

these phenomena should foster more community commitment.12 Yet this is not

the case. There is no association between Internet use, social contact, organiza-

tional and political involvement, and feelings of community (or alienation) in

everyday life.

However, there are strong negative associations between theextent of Internet

use and three measures of commitment to online community (see Table 6). 13

Whydoes high Internet usedecreasecommitment toonlinecommunity?It isnot

a general avoidance of community, becauseonlyonline commitment is rejected.

We believe that thecausalmechanism is unpleasant exposure. Themore peo-

ple are online, the greater the likelihood that they will encounter annoying peo-

ple who will act more disagreeably than if they were face-to-face (Lea, OShea,

Fung, & Spears, 1992). Our reasoning is

1. People who use the Internet frequently tend to have larger online social networksand more contact with network members.

2. Larger online social networks tend to contain a greater number (and higher pro-portion) of weak ties.

3. The moreweaktiesin a socialnetwork, themoreheterogeneous itis likelytobe.4. The more weak ties, themorelikely that interactionswithsomenetworkmembers

will be distasteful.5. The more weakties,the more sparselyknitthe network.In otherwords, fewernet-

work members will be directly connected with each other.6. The more sparsely knit thenetwork, theharder it is to mobilize socialcontrol that

can encourage behavior appropriate to the community.

7. Hence,a large number of weak ties in a sparsely knit networkincreases the likeli-hood of exposure to distasteful computer-mediated communication (e-mails,chats, etc.).

8. Experiencing such distasteful computer-mediated communication will weakencommitment to online community.




15/21

In short, greater use of the Internet may lead to larger social networks with

more weak ties and distasteful interaction with some of these ties, resulting in

lower commitment to the online community. We caution that we have demon-

strated only the bookends of this argument here: the relationship between fre-

quent use ofthe Internetand a low sense of onlinecommunity. The restis a black

box that awaits future investigation.


TABLE 6: Demographic,Social Contact, andInternet Effects on OnlineCommunity Com-

mitment (N

= 20,075

a

)

Sense of General Sense Sense of

Community With of Online Alienation

Family Onlineb

Communityb

Onlineb

Gender (male = 1) .108 .020 .007*


18 to 29 .034 .060 .052

40 to 49 .016 .021 .064

50 to 65 .084 .047 .073

66 or older .081 .048 .023*


Asian .008* .011* .025

Black .066 .019 .005*

Other .022 .006* .007

Education (reference = undergraduate degree)

High school or less .016 .062 .034

Some college .011* .083 .034

Graduate degree .033 .021* .040

Marital status (reference = married)

Single .038 .044 .007*

Living with partner, nonmarried .002* .035 .028

How long using Internet .020 .008* .039

Personal visits (family within 30 miles) .014* .007* .035

Telephone (family within 30 miles) .046 .021* .019*

Personal visits (friends within 30 miles) .016 .000* .001*

Telephone (friends within 30 miles) .019* .032 .013*

Personal visits (family beyond 30 miles) .016 .005* .000*

Telephone (family beyond 30 miles) .135 .051 .020*

Personal visits (friends beyond 30 miles) .001* .007* .000*

Telephone (friends beyond 30 miles) .011* .010* .020*Political participation .025 .041 .030

Organizational participation .051 .001 .013

Asynchronous Internet use .175 .315 .083

Synchronous Internet use .049 .316 .071

Adjusted R2

.108 .289 .029

a. Sample size is reduced because not all respondents completed this module.b. Standardized beta coefficients.*Indicates nonsignificant coefficients (p > .05).



16/21

HOW THE INTERNET MAY AFFECT SOCIAL CAPITAL

Does the Internet affect social capital in terms of social network contact,

organizational and political participation, and community commitment? Our

results indicate that Internet use supplements network capital by extending

existing levels of face-to-faceand telephonecontact.This is oneof thefew situa-

tions in the social sciences where a lack of association is meaningful. Heavy

Internet users neither use e-mail as a substitute for face-to-face visits and tele-

phone calls nor visit andphone more often. Most Internet contact is with people

who live within an hours drive. People who live farther apart have less overall

contact. Yet, these long-distance ties use the Internet for a higher proportion of

their overall contact.

The Internet is especially used to maintain ties with friends. Friends usually

interact as either two people or two couples, whereas kin andneighbors are likely

to be in densely knit social networks. Our findings suggest that the Internet is

particularlyuseful for keeping contact among friends who are socially and geo-

graphically dispersed. Yet distance still matters: Communication is lower with

distant than nearby friends.

These results suggest that theeffects of theInternet on socialcontact aresup-

plementary, unlike the predictions of either the utopians or dystopians. More-

over, our results show that Internet use is not a uniform activity: People engage

insocialand asocial activities when online. Ononehand, theInternetis used as a

tool for solitary activities that keep people from engaging with their kin and in

their communities. On the other hand, not all online activities compete with

offline interactions. People might read newspapers or search for information

regardless of whether theydo this online or offline. Thetimepeople savebecause

they shop online may be spent in offline socializing with family and friends.

Internet use increases participatory capital. The more people are on the

Internet and the more they are involved in online organizational and political

activity, the more they are involved in offline organizational and political activ-

ity. The limitations of our data do not allow us to make strong inferences about

howInternetactivityinfluencespolitical participation. Althoughfuture research

will have to specify the causal sequence, we suspect a positive feedback effect.

Ratherthandistinct onlineand offline spheres, peopleare using whatever means

are appropriate and available at the moment to participate in organizations and

politics.People already participatingofflinewilluse the Internet to augment and

extend their participation. People already participating online will get more

involved in person with organizations and politics.

Internet use is associated with decreased commitment to online community.

Because the association is limited to online community, we suspect that highInternet use has led to bad experiences that have resulted in low levels of

commitment.

Taken together, our results suggest that the Internet is increasing interper-

sonal connectivity and organizational involvement. However, this increased




17/21

connectivity and involvement not only can expose people to more contact and

more information, it can reduce commitment to community. Even before theadvent of the Internet, there has been a move from all-encompassing, socially

controlling communities to individualized, fragmented personal communities

(Wellman, 1999a, 2001). The security and social control of all-encompassing

communities have given way to the opportunity and vulnerability of networked

individualism. People now go through the day, week, and month in a variety of

narrowly defined relationships with changing sets of network members.

It is time formoredifferentiated analyses of theInternet, analyses that embed

it in everyday life offline as well as online. Although we have shown that the

Internet affects socialcapital, themechanisms areunclear. Knowing that people

have been using the Internet for more than 2 years or that they are online for

3 hours per day doesnot provide a clear picture of the activities inwhich theyare

engaged.

Future analyses need to examine in more detail the effects of the Internet,

focus on the types of activities performed online, and explore how these fit into

thecomplexityof everyday life.In general, theactivities fallinto twocategories:

social activities such as e-mail and chatting that promote interactions, and asocial activities such as Web surfing and reading the news.

When the Internet engages people primarily in asocial activities, then even

more than television, its immersiveness can turn people away from community,

organizational and political involvement, and domestic life. By contrast, when

people use the Internet to communicate and coordinate with friends, relatives,

and organizationsnear and farthen it is a tool for building and maintaining

socialcapital.Our research hasshownthat there areno singleInternet effects. In

this era of spatially dispersed community, the Internet fills needs for additionalinterpersonal contact that supplement in-person and telephone contact. At a

time of declining organizational participation, the Internet provides tools for

those already involved to increase their participation. Yet, at a time when net-

worked individualism reduces group social cohesion, extensive involvement

with the Internet apparently exposes participants to situations that weaken their

sense of community online. This suggests that future examination of Internet

usemightidentifywhat affects thequalityas well as thequantityof onlinesocial

interactionfor weak and strong ties.

NOTES

1. However, our Netlabs study of a suburb found that highly wired residents had many more

neighborhoodties andinteractionsthan thenonwired (Hampton,2001;Hampton& Wellman,1999).

2. Ourdata andothers (Wellman, Carrington, & Hall, 1988) showthat other thanritual greeting

cards, people rarely send letters through the traditional post anymore, even as the Internet itself

booststhe sheer volume of written communication. It would be interestingto compare theeffectsof




18/21

the Internet to that of the introduction of the telephone as a complement to and replacement for

face-to-face and postal communication.For the beginnings of suchanalysis, see Fischer (1992) andWellman and Tindall (1993).

3. The survey was prepared in collaboration with our research group and has been available at

http://www.nationalgeographic/survey. It is documented in Witte and Howard (1999) and Witte,

Amoroso, and Howard (2000). See also Chmielewski and Wellman (1999).

4. Although we used orthogonal varimax factor analysis to identify associated variables, for

ease of interpretation we use the variables themselves to construct the two scales. Cronbachs ,

indicating scalereliability, is .72for theasynchronousscale and .53for thesynchronous scale.Other

scaling techniques were tried and provided similar results.

5. We do notplacemuch importance in statistical significancein this article, for, with a sample

sizeof nearly 40,000,the mosttrivial relationshipsbecome significant.Thus, statisticallysignificant

relationships may not be substantively significant.

6. Percentagesindicate howoften theparticipantscontactedeach of therelationshipsin thepast

year.

7. Ratiosareobtainedby calculatingthe proportionof frequencyof onerelationshipbyanother.

Forexample, inTables2 and3, theratio nearbyfriend:distant friendfor contact viae-mail is86:62=

1.39.The meanannual communication viae-mail with friends nearbyis divided bythe mean annual

communication with friends at a distance.

8. Regressions available at www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman.

9. Organizational involvement was measured by 20 items asking questions about organiza-

tional participation. Theparticipantswereasked to indicatethe extent towhich theywere involved in

different organizations. The options were not at all, am a member, and am an active member. From

the 20 items, a scale measuring the degree of organizational involvement for each participant was

constructed by summing the number of memberships for each item, with membership including

members andactivemembers. Thus, foreach participanta score wasobtained that reflectedthe sum

of allthe activities engaged.Similarregression results werefound fora scalemeasuringactive mem-

bership only. Frequencies of participation are available at www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman.

10. The 12-item scale measuring political participation was based on the measure of participa-

tory acts and political protest designed by the Roper Centre for Public Opinion Research. For the

purpose ofthisstudy, a scalewas created that summarized thenumberof activities a personhadbeen

involved in. Thus, each person was assigned a score ranging from 0 (no participation at all) to 12

(high level of political involvement). Besides including the scale on political participation, whichexclusivelymeasures activityoffline, we alsoincludedan itemto measure participantsonline polit-

ical activity.

11. See www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman for a comparison of logistic regression models.

12. Community commitment was measured by 15 items that were summarized into a scale. For

factor loadings, see www.chass.utoronto.ca~wellman.

13. Three measures of a sense of community online are (a) a scale measuring a general sense of

online community, (b)a scalemeasuringsense of communitywith kinvia computer-mediated com-

munication, and (c) a single item measuring a sense of alienation online. Cronbachs , indicating

scale reliability, is .86 for the online community scale and .76 for the kinship scale.

REFERENCES

Anderson, B., & Tracey, K. (2001). Digital living: The impact (or otherwise) of the Internet oneveryday life. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 456-475.

Baym, N. K. (1997). Interpretingsoap operasand creating community: Insidean electronic fancul-

ture. InS.Kiesler (Ed.), Cultureof theInternet(pp.103-120).Mahweh,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.




19/21

Bikson, T. K., & Panis, C.W.A. (1997). Computer and connectivity: Current trends. In S. Kiesler

(Ed.), Culture of the Internet(pp. 407-430). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Chmielewski, T., & Wellman, B. (1999). Tracking geekus unixus: An explorers report from the

national geographic Website. SIGGROUP Bulletin, 20, 26-28.

Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: How social capital makes organizations work.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Cross, R. (2000). The ties that share: Relational characteristics that facilitate knowledge transfer

and organizational learning. Paper presented at the Sunbelt Social Network Analysis Confer-

ence, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

De Kerckhove, D. (1997). Connected intelligence:The arrival of the Web society. Toronto, Canada:

Somerville House.

de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. New York: Knopf.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the

Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.

Fischer,C. (1992).America calling: A socialhistoryof thetelephone to 1940. Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Flanagan, A., & Metzger, M. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human

Computer Research, 27, 153-181.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,

1360-1380.

Hampton, K. N. (2001). Living the wired life in the wired suburb: Netville, glocalization and civic

society. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.

Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (1999). Netville online and offline: Observing and surveying a

wired suburb. American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3), 478-492.

Hampton,K.,& Wellman, B. (2001).Longdistancecommunityin thenetworksociety: Contact and

support beyond Netville. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 476-495.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for information

exchangein a networkedorganization.Journalof theAmericanSociety for InformationScience,

49(12), 1101-1114.

Homans, G. (1961).Social behavior:Its elementary forms. NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich.

Howard, P.E.N.,Rainie,L., & Jones,S. (2001). Days andnights onthe Internet:The impactof a dif-

fusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 382-403.Kapor, M. (1993, July/August). Where is the digital highway really heading? Wired, 94, 53-59.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., & Aspden, P. (2001). The Internet, 1995-2000: Access, civic involvement,

and social interaction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 404-418.

Kavanaugh, A. L.,& Patterson, S. J. (2001). Theimpact of communitycomputer networkson social

capital and community involvement. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 496-509.

Koku, E., Nazer, N., & Wellman, B. (2001). Netting scholars: Online and offline. American Behav-

ioral Scientist, 44(10), 1752-1774.

Kraut, R., Lundmark, V., Patterson, M., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998).

Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological

well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.

Kraut, R.,Mukhopadhyay, T., Szczypula,J., Kiesler,S., & Scherlis,W. (1998).Communicationand

information: Alternative uses of the Internet in households. In Proceedings of the CHI 98

(pp. 368-383). New York: ACM.

LaRose, R., Eastin, M. S., & Gregg, J. (2001). Reformulating the Internet paradox: Social cognitive

explanationsof Internet useanddepression.Journalof Online Behavior, 1/2[Online].Available:http://www.behavior.net/JOB/v1n2/paradox.html

Lea, M., OShea, T., Fung, P., & Spears, R. (1992). Flaming in computer-mediated communica-

tion: Observations, explanations, implications. In M. Lea (Ed.), Contextsof computer-mediated

communication (pp. 89-112). London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.




20/21

Lvy, P. (1997). Collective intelligence: Mankinds emerging world in cyberspace. New York: Ple-

num Trade.Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of Black insurgency 1930-1970. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Merton, R. (1957). Patterns of influence: Cosmopolitans and locals. In R. Merton (Ed.), Social the-

ory and social structure (pp. 387-420). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Mosquera, M. (2000). More than half of U.S. households now have Internet access. TechWeb News

[Online]. Available: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB200011218S0011

Mller, C. (1999,July 5-7).Networks of personal communities and group communities in dif-

ferent online communication services. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Exploring

Cyber Society: Social, Political, Economic and Cultural Issues, University of Northumbria at

Newcastle, United Kingdom.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Falling through the Net:

Towarddigitalinclusion (Report of theU.S.Department of Commerce,Economic andStatistics

Administration) [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/

Nie,N. H. (2001).Sociability, interpersonalrelations, andthe Internet:Reconcilingconflictingfind-

ings. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 419-435.

Nie, N.H., & Erbring, L. (2000).Internetand society: A preliminary report. Stanford,CA: Stanford

Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society.

Nie, N.H., & Sackman,H. (1970). Theinformationutilityand social choice. Montvale, NJ:AFIPS.

Orlikowski,W.J. (1996).Learningfrom notes: Organizationalissuesin groupwareimplementation.

InR. Kling(Ed.), Computerization andcontroversy:Value conflictsand social choices (2nded.,

pp. 173-189). San Diego: CA: Academic Press.

Putnam,R.D. (1996).The strangedisappearance ofcivic America.AmericanProspect, 24, 34-48.

Putnam, R. D. (2000).Bowlingalone: The collapseand revivalof American community. NewYork:

Simon & Schuster.

Reddick, A. (2000, July). The dual digital divide: The information highway in Canada (Report of

the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Human Resources Development Canada, Industry Can-

ada) [Online]. Available: http://olt-bta.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/publicat/index.html

Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the eletronic frontier(2nd ed.).

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

schraefel, m. c., Ho, J., Chignell, M., & Milton, M. (2000). Building virtual communities for

research collaboration. Paper presented at the AIWoRC00: An International Working Confer-

ence and Industrial Expo on New Advances and Emerging Trends in Next Generation Enter-

prises, Buffalo, NY.

Schwartz,E. (1996).Netactivism:How citizensuse theInternet. Sebastopol,CA:Songline Studies.

Slouka, M. (1995). War of the worlds: Cyberspace and the high-tech assault on reality. New York:

Basic Books.

Smith, M. A., Drucker, S. M., Wellman, B., & Kraut, R. (1999, May). Counting on community in

cyberspace. Paper presented at the CHI 99, Pittsburgh, PA.

Sproull, L. S.,& Kiesler,S. B. (1991). Connections: New waysof working in the networkedorgani-

zation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Steiner,G. A. (1963).Thepeople lookat television:A study of audienceattitudes. NewYork:Knopf.

Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York:Doubleday.

Tarrow,S. (1998).Fishnets,Internets andcatnets:Globizationand transnationalcollectiveaction. In

M. Hanagan, L. Moch, & W. TeBrake (Eds.), The past and future of collective action (pp. 228-

244). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.




21/21

Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Social capital and the Net. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 60-65.

Wellman, B. (1999a). The network community: An introduction. In B. Wellman (Ed.), Networks inthe global village (pp. 1-48). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Wellman, B. (1999b). Networks in the global village. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyber place: The rise of personalized networking. Interna-

tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227-252.

Wellman, B., Carrington, P., & Hall, A. (1988). Networks as personal communities. In B.

Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz(Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp.130-184). Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wellman, B.,& Frank,K. (2001). Network capital in a multi-levelworld: Getting support from per-

sonal communities. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research

(pp. 233-273). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Wellman, B.,& Gulia,M. (1999). Netsurfersdontridealone. InB. Wellman(Ed.),Networks in the

global village (pp. 331-366). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Wellman, B.,& Tindall, D. (1993). Reach outand touch some bodies: How socialnetworks connect

telephone networks. Progress in Communication Sciences, 12, 63-93.

Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and

social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558-588.

Witte,J. C.,Amoroso,L. M.,& Howard,P.E.N.(2000).Methodand representationin Internet-based

survey tools: Mobility, community, and cultural identity in survey 2000. Social Science Com-

puting Review, 18(2), 179-195.


Documents

Does the Internet Increase, Decrease,2001